Quote from: ShadySue on March 14, 2011, 06:44

Quote from: LSD72 on March 13, 2011, 22:42

BTW.. has anyone nominated Lobo 

I don't know, but a few people have nominated Bruce. But it turns out, he's inelible for the same reason as Rob.
http://www.istockphoto.com/bitter
A little factoid that I'd missed.

Peebert is still exclusive 

So is the aforementioned Brentman . . . an IT guy would be very helpful on the panel, in addition to a lawyer and an accountant

I'm not nominating anyone as long as the "exclusives only" rule applies. There's no point, really, when istock is making it very clear that the voices and concerns of independent artists are not important.

IMHO, I think the exclusive requirement is there to help enforce the DNA. They have a lot more leverage with exclusives adhering to the document as they have the most to lose if they break the agreement.

For me, not enough.

Here we go again, at the high drama stage...everyone anxiously awaiting a peep from kk, admin, the big five...drum roll, please.

I'm off to do something constructive. Like shooting, uploading, selling and depositing money from all the other sites who are still functioning as they intended.

Couldnt care one iota. Just want the site to get back to normal again without hickups and bugs. Oh yes, Im going to as Ingemar Kamprad, the owner of IKEA if he wants to buy IS, everything would be working in five minutes flat and he only lives a few kilometers from me.

Site would look a lot nicer too   Ask him

<Snip> @cclapper
edited: if exclusives want so much to be exclusive, why don't the exclusives bear the brunt exclusively of the clawback? It's only fair if exclusives make more money, have given up more, deserve more perks, are the only ones allowed to represent contributors, etc. (all of which I am ok with), then logic only says that non-exclusives should not be held accountable for any of the clawbacks. Right?   Exclusivity only seems to go one way.
[/quote]

Why do you have so much ill will toward exclusives? I've lost $340 from the clawback. How much have you lost now that you've deleted your port down to 5 images? With only 5 images what does it matter what they do anyway?

There are plenty of woo-yayers that probably hope flattery will get them some Vettas approved or some position with the company. I don't think that's representative of the bulk of exclusive contributors. We don't like what's happened either and TPTB want nothing more than an angry division between exclusives and non-exclusives.

Exclusives and non-exclusives should be working together to figure out how to make the future of microstock better for all of us, not engaging in cat fights and petty squabbles.

<Snip> @cclapper
edited: if exclusives want so much to be exclusive, why don't the exclusives bear the brunt exclusively of the clawback? It's only fair if exclusives make more money, have given up more, deserve more perks, are the only ones allowed to represent contributors, etc. (all of which I am ok with), then logic only says that non-exclusives should not be held accountable for any of the clawbacks. Right?   Exclusivity only seems to go one way.


Why do have so much ill will toward exclusives? I've lost $340 from the clawback. How much have you lost now that you've deleted your port down to 5 images? With only 5 images what does it matter what they do anyway?

There are plenty of woo-yayers that probably hope flattery will get them some Vettas approved or some position with the company. I don't think that's representative of the bulk of exclusive contributors. We don't like what's happened either and TPTB want nothing more than an angry division between exclusives and non-exclusives.

Exclusives and non-exclusives should be working together to figure out how to make the future of microstock better for all of us, not engaging in cat fights and petty squabbles.

Re: first bold...Is the amount really relevant? Thank goodness I have deactivated my images, I don't have to worry about another clawback. Do I only get a say if I have lost $10? $100? $1000. No one should be losing anything...we joined to MAKE money! Everyone that contributes there has the right to answers.

You are asking me why I have ill will against exclusives. You should be asking the exclusives what they have against non-exclusives! They (and kk) are the ones supporting the decision to make this an exclusive only issue! Personally, I don't think a conference call with anyone is going to do anything, so really, it is all totally moot.

Ask kk why he is making this an exclusive-only issue. Once again, it's much easier for you to tell me how I am causing a cat fight or petty squabble than it is to talk to kk, so since sh*t rolls downhill, put the blame on me. Deflect the real cause of the problem from Getty/IS and turn it towards the contributors who just want real answers, not smoke and mirrors.

I have spoken...

The Voice of the People becomes the Choice of the People.
Go to it, Sean!

@cclapper

"Do I only get a say if I have lost $10? $100? $1000."
Yes, everyone should have their say. You deleted your port down to 5 images. I guess I don't understand why you are still so emotionally involved with what happens at Istock.


"They (and kk) are the ones supporting the decision to make this an exclusive only issue!"
No, read KK's post here. He only wants exclusives for the meeting. I think everyone would be fine with Lisa, Joe or Yuri in the meeting.

http://www.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=312142&page=60#post6069182


My point is that I don't understand your anger specifically at exclusive contributors. We are taking it on the chin as well. I do understand your anger at Istock the company. We all understand that.

"Do I only get a say if I have lost $10? $100? $1000."
Yes, everyone should have their say. You deleted your port down to 5 images. I guess I don't understand why you are still so emotionally involved with what happens at Istock.

You answered your own question...I have the right to have my say, too. As long as I have an account open at IS, I am a contributor.

My point is that I don't understand your anger specifically at exclusive contributors. We are taking it on the chin as well. I do understand your anger at Istock the company. We all understand that.

You have changed my point about segregating out non-exclusives from the conference call into some general anger I have against exclusives. The reason you don't understand it is because it isn't there.  Out of the first page of people in my CN which totals 20, 14 are exclusive. Where's the anger?

What other conclusion could the five possibly return with, other than "Things will get better"? Could they possibly get worse? iStock wouldn't initiate this conversation unless they had some type of action plan to show off to them - whether its feasible, whether it even goes forward, can't possibly be known by the 5 selected. All they can possibly do is say, "What they have planned will help. Things will get better."

And that puts us no further forward than hearing Andrew say, "We're on it. Believe me, please, we don't like this any more than you do." Personally I trust Andrew a lot -- it's just that the crap they give him to feed  to us stinks. But it's all they give him. The Selected 5 will be in the same boat.

Exactamundo.

Too funny that rogermexico is now talking about more contributor panels. The talk of class action lawsuits and audits in particular must have them running scared. Clearly they have something to hide. If I were a contributor I would not be mollified by these empty attempts to placate. They have the forums for to communicate with contributors, why do they suddenly need contributor panels? This just means more and more critics are going to have to sign NDAs. And how is anyone even going to know what they are being told is the truth.

You guys need to go for the jugular and follow through on the threats to get any real action. I bet an audit would show some really interesting things...

Too funny that rogermexico is now talking about more contributor panels. The talk of class action lawsuits and audits in particular must have them running scared. Clearly they have something to hide. If I were a contributor I would not be mollified by these empty attempts to placate. They have the forums for to communicate with contributors, why do they suddenly need contributor panels? This just means more and more critics are going to have to sign NDAs. And how is anyone even going to know what they are being told is the truth.

You guys need to go for the jugular and follow through on the threats to get any real action. I bet an audit would show some really interesting things...

The audit is what I really want.  If they want to have panels, then fine -- I think those are helpful, especially with regard to site functionality. Ideally, the panels would be composed of buyers and contributors (a unique and unheard of concept, I'm sure .  But as far as the fraud, yeah . . . I'm interested in getting Sean's et al impression of the plans, but what about the money problems of the last 6 months? We need an independent audit, just so we have a good place to start over again.